Perhaps we can add actual numbers of some recent (or older) royal weddings to this thread as a comparison?

I think the Earl and Countess of Wessex had about 400-500 guests at their wedding but there were more than 1,000 guests at Infanta Cristina's wedding to handball player Inaki Urdangarin and about 1,00-1,200 guests at Felipe and Letizia's wedding.

I love looking at the June 2005 newsletter with all those wonderful pictures of royal weddings-so gorgeous!
My question is not strictly related to royalty, but I'd always assumed that brides like Princess Mary and Princess Letitzia who their veils behind their faces through the whole wedding were adopting a more modern tradition than brides who were their veil over their face but when I looked at these pictures I saw a lot of older photos of the same thing. I was just wondering if there is any tradition to do that, or if it depends on the culture, or is it just personal preference if they want their veil to cover their face?

I think what you're describing is the blusher (the part of the veil that will come forward to cover the face). I believe having a blusher is the bride's personal preference and depends on if the tiara and veil will hold it well. Early brides such as Queen Victoria, and Alexandra of Denmark did not have blushers. Queen Elizabeth did not in the 40s, but Diana, Sarah, and Sophie all did in the 80s and 90s. Grace Kelly had one in the 50s. So I guess the fashion era might influence the blusher, but it's purely personal preference.

__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?

I think what you're describing is the blusher (the part of the veil that will come forward to cover the face). I believe having a blusher is the bride's personal preference and depends on if the tiara and veil will hold it well. Early brides such as Queen Victoria, and Alexandra of Denmark did not have blushers. Queen Elizabeth did not in the 40s, but Diana, Sarah, and Sophie all did in the 80s and 90s. Grace Kelly had one in the 50s. So I guess the fashion era might influence the blusher, but it's purely personal preference.

I'm not sure, but I think that royals can't cover their face, so brides who are royal by birth don't have a blusher. All the brides with blusher you mentioned - Diana, Sarah, Sophie and Grace - weren't royals by birth.

But I'm waiting for an expert.

__________________I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947

I'm not sure, but I think that royals can't cover their face, so brides who are royal by birth don't have a blusher. All the brides with blusher you mentioned - Diana, Sarah, Sophie and Grace - weren't royals by birth.

But I'm waiting for an expert.

No, I think it is as EmpressRouge suggested -- a personal preference by the bride.

Nothing I've ever read about royal weddings implies that non-royal brides must don blushers while royal-born brides do not. It's simply a matter of what one is comfortable with or how traditional one wants to be.

All the blushers I've seen can be lifted back from the bride's face for the kiss :) so I'm assuming that while Diana and Charles were off-camera signing the registry, that someone lifted it up and arrranged it beneath the Spencer tiara. Agreed, it's a nice touch.

I believe that generally speaking, royal brides are supposed to cover their shoulders (at least short sleeves) and not be too low cut. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Maybe someone else knows the specifications for you.

I don't know if it was posted before, but:
When a common-girl going to royal family who pay for her wedding-dress?
Are there any recipes, rules about that future bride's dowry?
How it was with Maxima, Mary, Mete-Marit, Letizia and other princesses?

Why are all royal wedding dresses 3/4 or long-sleeved? Is it tradition or a question of modesty? I see a lot of tasteful strapless and halter-top wedding dresses but I'm guessing that's too informal for a royal wedding? I ask because most of the royal ladies don't mind wearing strapless, halter, and one-shoulder dresses for galas.

I ask because most of the royal ladies don't mind wearing strapless, halter, and one-shoulder dresses for galas.

Well, there's a big difference between a gala and a wedding. It is bad taste and disrespectful to come to a church with a strapless dress (be you royal or not), just like it would be, if a man decided to wear shorts.

Well, there's a big difference between a gala and a wedding. It is bad taste and disrespectful to come to a church with a strapless dress (be you royal or not), just like it would be, if a man decided to wear shorts.

Funny answer but totaly right :p The use, for a woman, is toa wear a long wedding dress, royal or not !

Well, there's a big difference between a gala and a wedding. It is bad taste and disrespectful to come to a church with a strapless dress (be you royal or not), just like it would be, if a man decided to wear shorts.

There is a big difference between gala and weddings. I suppose it is in bad taste to come into a church with a more revealing dress. But nowadays, I see so many non-royals wearing halter tops, spaghetti straps, and strapless wedding dress into churches. Granted, they are not royals. Just curious :) .

Don't know whether it has to do with whether you're a royal or a commoner, but I remember when Haakon and Mette married the reporter said kissing in the church wasn't allowed. Thus they waited until they were outside and then just kissed in front of the church.